Thursday, 16 April 2009

Gran Torino came with high expectations. This is reportedly Clint Eastwood’s last film as an actor (he will continue to direct) and so fans had high hopes for his swan-song. And aside from a few quibbles, this is the great film that you would expect it to be.

It’s a simple plot, maybe even a little corny: racist old war veteran reluctantly befriends his Korean neighbours and becomes their guardian when the youngest is pressured to join his cousin’s gang. But the simplicity allows Eastwood lots of memorable moments: wisecracking racist slurs, berating his spoilt family, dishing out tough-love advice or threatening local youths with a rifle. His character is the classic Dirty Harry badass and more.

Also, Eastwood displays some great moments of comedy, such as his flustered reaction when his neighbours shower him with flowers and his life lessons on how to talk to guys. Admittedly, at times, his growling, mumbling and grimacing appears like an overplayed self-parody of himself. But whether intentional or not, it’s still pretty damn hilarious.

The laughs are welcome because the film can be dark at times (the son is beaten, the daughter is raped) but it wouldn’t be a Clint Eastwood film if there weren’t bad guys to punish. And the punishment is genius – a twist on the expected Eastwood reaction.

In short, Gran Torino is a fitting last outing for Eastwood’s extensive hit list – a mix-match of your favourite Eastwood characters with some new now-or-never stuff.

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

After an intense Oscar-film binge at the start of this year, followed by the dystopian, sci-fi, film noir epic Watchmen, I decided it was time for something completely different…

Monsters Vs Aliens! In frickin’ 3-D!

That’s right. Out with the true stories, the melodrama, the hand-held cameras and Sean Penn. This film has monsters. And aliens. Fighting each other. In 3-D. Hell yeah!

Excitement aside, this film was everything I expected it to be. Dreamworks, as always, will never be able to touch Pixar when it comes to CGI animated films. But Dreamworks offerings are colourful, silly and fun. And they are getting better.

The plot is ridiculously simple: aliens invade and the governments only hope lie in a misfit bunch of monsters, each one referencing a different B-movie classic. We have parodies of The Blob, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Fly, The Attack of the Fifty-Foot Woman and Mothra. All are brilliant, introducing a new generation to the mighty monsters of the 50s, and each is voiced fittingly by Seth Rogen, Will Arnett, Hugh Laurie (on top Blackadder King George form) and Reese Witherspoon.

The jokes are hit-and-miss (as you would expect from a kids film) but the real thrill is seeing these guys battle aliens and destroy stuff in 3-D. With so many 3-D films coming out this year and James Cameron’s epic space opera Avatar due out in December, which will change the world, we might as well get used to wearing those Real-D glasses now. At least they’re cooler than the old red-and-green specs.

So, Monsters Vs. Aliens: harmless, bright and energetic entertainment. But mostly, it is the perfect dose of silliness after a long Oscar season.

You must have heard the stories by now. This is a film that spent two decades in development hell and was declared unfilmable by Paul Greengrass, Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky and – genius creator of the graphic novel itself – Alan Moore. And they had a point. How exactly do you condense the most celebrated graphic novel of all time into a mainstream Hollywood movie?

After all, this is a masterpiece that has multiple story-lines, a huge mythology to establish (one where Nixon is still President), it addresses both rape and erectile dysfunction, whilst the hero is a psychotic masked avenger. Emphasis on psychotic. Forget The Dark Knight and Wolverine. Rorshach is the most anti of anti-heroes committed to the screen since Taxi Driver's Travis Bickle.

But Zack Snyder manages it. In fact, against all odds, the director of the stylish but juvenile Dawn of the Dead and 300, has done more than just manage it. He has produced an absolute cinematic masterpiece. Without losing the gore, effects, thrills and iconic lens of his previous films, he adeptly balances the vast ensemble (back stories included) with the huge themes on offer: War, psychosis, moral ambiguity, the perception of time. But then again, I don’t know why I am surprised. If you re-watch Dawn of the Dead and 300, Snyder seems an obvious candidate for this project. His potential was vast and he just needed to be given an epic to tackle. In short, he was waiting for his Watchmen.

But to quote the film: who watches the Watchmen?

Anyone who has read it know how incredible it is and will certainly flock to the cinema. And they will love it. It is an accurate adaptation, faithful without forsaking bursts of mainstream action, and the very few cuts are logical. The intermingled escapades of the Tales of the Black Freighter comic are thankfully removed (but coming to a DVD extra near you) and that bizarre business of the telepathic monster being transported into New York was replaced with a simpler Dr Manhattan-style explosion. Better.

Snyder has even managed to tell the story of the original Minutemen from the 1940s, the first generation of masked avengers and something I was convinced would be cut. But not only does he tell it through an ingenious opening-credits montage, but it might just be my favourite bit of the film. Told in a beautiful series of slow-motion camera pans, spanning the characters and the history, we see the alternative universe of Watchmen unfurl. We see the triumphs and downfall of the original Minutemen members, in addition to altered versions of world history: Nixon being re-elected, Dr Manhattan beating Neil Armstrong to the moon, soldiers gunning down hippies. And there are some great cameos of Andy Warhol, David Bowie and Fidel Castro. And all of this is to the tune of Bob Dylan singing 'Times Are A-Changing'. The tone is set for the film and it is magnificent.

But what about people who have never even heard of Watchmen? Well, this is where this will be a divide.

Some people will love it. Movie snobbery alert: these will be the people who appreciate good cinema, whether the films be arty or action-packed. A few of my friends have seen it despite never having heard of the Watchmen a month ago and they thought it was quality. Reassuring.

Then again, some people will hate it. These will be the people who expect a short, simple superhero movie like X-Men or Spiderman. Boy, are they in for a shock. This is a heavy movie, in terms of politics, structure and hyper-violence. These are the people who will not ‘get’ Watchmen and will complain that they cannot see what all the fuss is about. Incidentally, these are also the people who would never even consider reading the novel because they would rather watch Big Brother.

Admittedly, some people might just be confused. There is a lot of back story to Watchmen and there are a lot of characters, like all the great novels. To help newbies digest the film a bit easier, I have therefore been pitching the film’s plot like this:

==========================================================

Watchmen is set in an alternate 1985, where the Cold War still rages and Nixon has been re-elected for a third term. The world is dark and corrupt. In the 1940s, a bunch of people decided they would put on masks and fight crime to make the world a better place. This first generation of crime-fighters were called The Minutemen.

Over time, The Minutemen fell apart: some were murdered, some went mad, some went missing. A second generation of crime-fighters was therefore born: known in the film (but not the novel) as The Watchmen. The second generation are the main characters of the story.

A couple of years later, Nixon passes a law to make all masked crime-fighters illegal. Some retire and some go rogue & continue as vigilantes. There are only two exceptions. The first is Dr Manhattan: blue, God-like and the only one with actual superhero powers. He is American and therefore giving America the upper-hand in the Cold War. The second exception is The Comedian: he is a psychopath who works for the government, fighting guerrilla wars in smaller countries.

The film starts with the death of The Comedian, murdered by a mystery assailant. The rest of the crime-fighters try to work out who is behind the attack.

==============================================================

I think that pitch should be enough to get newcomers through the opening fifteen minutes. And by then, they should be hooked.

So regardless of whether you have or haven’t read the graphic novel, just go watch the Watchmen. You will not be disappointed.a

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

As you can see from my ‘25 Things’ blog, I have recently visited Tokyo. I have wanted to go there ever since I saw Lost in Translation for the first time in 2004 and I have always been excited by the eclectic fusion of neon streets, ancient temples and cutting-edge technology. It was well worth the wait.

Tokyo is everything you expect it to be.

The parodies you have seen in popular culture - whether it be the hyper-animated otaku (geek) culture or the armies of businessmen sleeping on the train after working 16 hours shifts – are all true and then some. You have also probably seen beautiful views of Mount Fuji and the shrines of Kamakura on Japan tourist websites. Again, these are just as beautiful as they are depicted and are even more breath-taking in real time.

Tokyo – and Japan – is the sort of place where you return after just one week with hundreds of stories to tell. Even the billboards and rail system make for interesting stories because everything is just that little bit different. And for me, who has never ventured outside of Europe until now, it was a huge culture shock. I now have some serious newfound sympathy for tourists in this country because I was completely lost. Had I not been so skilled in the art of charades, I would never have found my way around.

There is too much to write about – enough content for a book, let alone a blog – and so here is a quick breakdown of my week:

Tuesday – Imperial Palace and the East gardens, followed by my first taste of Japanese eating. I also met a Japanese dentistry student named Yassu.

Wednesday – Kamakura, (shrines and temples as far as the eye can see, and then we watched the football in the evening: Japan vs. Australia. It was 0 – 0.

Thursday – Akihabara, the geek town of Tokyo: cutting-edge technology, toys, arcades and comic books. I have found my new spiritual home.

Friday – Tsujiki Fish Market, the largest fish market in the world and the most dangerous place I have ever been. This was followed by Asakusa and the Museum for Studio Ghibli, the Japanese equivalent to Pixar/Disney. Their films are wonderful. The evening was brilliant, as we watched Alex’s friend’s Japanese Metal Band. I then spent the night in a Capsule Hotel.

Saturday – Hakone, outside of the city and home to several hot springs and epic views of Mount Fuji.

Sunday – Ginza, the posh shopping region of Tokyo, and then Harajuku, where Japanese people dress in their finest or most bizarre clothes and strut. We then watched Quantum of Solace.

Monday – Odaiba, the man-made island which acts as a port to Tokyo, which boasts the Fujitsu HQ, the Toyota showroom and its own Statue of Liberty.

Tuesday – souvenir shopping splurge and then the long flight home.

Wednesday – jet-lagged in France and then home.

It was a surreal and eye-opening week. Plus, I have never used my camera and camcorder so much in all my life. And that’s saying something. Special domo arigato to Alex, who let me kip on his floor all week. Legend.

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

Although not all reviews appear on here, this was the first time ever that I had seen every major film (except Doubt) and felt like I could legitimately whinge about the results if I was unhappy with them, like usual. But amazingly, the Oscars got it right this year! I was chuffed with all of the winners – except Best Actor – and loved seeing the Brits kicking ass across the board.

One slight grumble, however, with the BBC. I was well looking forward to watching the ceremony live but the BBC weren’t showing it. Sky Movies Premiere was the only channel showing it at 4am and I haven’t subscribed to that. Annoying. Anyway…

Here are the winners and my thoughts:

Best Picture

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Frost/Nixon

Milk

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

Happy days! Slumdog repeated its success at the Globes and BAFTAs by taking away the top prize. I still can’t believe a British feel-good film triumphed at the Oscars. Let’s hope this is the start of something new.

Best Director

Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire

Stephen Daldry - The Reader

David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon

Gus Van Sant – Milk

Danny Boyle is a legend. He has mastered all genres with genius camerawork, visual gags and grade-A soundtracks. And he is British. Well deserved.

Best ActorRichard Jenkins - The Visitor

Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon

Sean Penn - Milk

Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Tragedy strikes. This was the only category that got it wrong. Mickey Rourke should have won this hands-down, trailed by Langella. Unfortunately, it’s hardly surprising that America gave it to their golden boy Penn – especially as he was playing a liberal American politician.

Best actress

Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married

Angelina Jolie - Changeling

Melissa Leo - Frozen River

Meryl Streep - Doubt

Kate Winslet - The Reader

Winslett wins it. Finally! Great speech too. I loved the whistle from her Dad.

This was only ever going to be Heath. The sad fact is, had he not died, he would never have received this award, even though he deserved it a thousand times over. The Academy would never have recognised a comic book film otherwise. The performance would have been dismissed, just as Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow had been dismissed in 2003.

In short, a very good year.And it was a great time to force myself to see every Oscar-nominated film. This has been the most intense cinema-going two months I’ve ever had and it has really reminded me all over again of why I’m such a film-obsessive.

Sunday, 8 February 2009

It’s been a whole three weeks since I last blogged a film review so I’ve got some catching up to do. In some ways, the wait has been beneficial in terms of writing these reviews, especially when it comes to Milk.

Had I written a review of Milk shortly after leaving the cinema, I would have been nothing but positive. But three weeks later, now that I have seen some much better films, I now realise that I have hardly thought about Milk. So I guess to quote Roy Walker: “It’s good but it’s not the one.”

Milk tells the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office. It is Oscar season after all so the true stories were bound to come flooding out (The Changeling, Che, Frost/Nixon) and therefore, as with all true stories, we know how this one ends: in this case, assassination. So when Harvey says in the first five minutes, “I doubt I’ll live to see 50,” it has a real poignancy that pretty much drives the rest of the film.

It is a fairly fast-paced film, considering it is about politics, and at no point did I get bored. But then again, any rags-to-riches tale is enthralling. Who doesn’t like seeing the good guys go from struggling underdogs to triumphant winners? So if you strip off all of the political context then you are essentially left with Sister Act 2, Cool Runnings or even Ten Years Younger. We love seeing people triumph over time and Milk absolutely tells that tale.

Although, that is obviously over-simplifying the film.

Aside from the zero-to-hero narrative, we see a lot of insight into Milk’s character as inspirational leader, idealist and all-round charming man. Plus, the gay rights movement (and the shockingly small-minded people that they had to face) is shown to us in point-blank, grainy newsreel. Gus Van Sant realises that there is no need to act every scene out when all of this really happened and archive footage will do the job.

The young stars are all great (James Franco, Diego Luna, the very likable Emile Hirsch) but this is clearly Sean Penn’s film. It’s very strange how the majority of films in Oscar season usually focus solely on one character and how that character is nearly always played by an A-lister. Whatever happened to the ensemble? What ever happened to the rising star? (Incidentally, the answers are best illustrated by other films from this year's Oscar season so all is not lost.)

So... Sean Penn. If I’m honest, I have never particularly liked Sean Penn. He is an over-serious actor who chooses over-serious roles, not counting his turn in Friends. He is one of those political actors (who all gratefully got their comeuppance courtesy of Team America) who feel that there views should be heard on all political issues simply because they are good at pretending to be other people. He also used to go out wth Madonna, he beat up journalists and – most criminally – after Chris Rock made a joke about Jude Law appearing in every film (“Who the hell is Jude Law anyway?”) Sean Penn marched onto stage and haughtily replied: “Jude Law is one of our finest actors.”

Why so serious, Sean?

But, ranting aside, there is no denying that the man can act. He deserved his Oscar for Mystic River (and even more so because 21 Grams was released that year) and I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if the Academy favoured him again.

Despite Penn’s heartfelt performance, I really hope Josh Brolin isn’t overlooked. Playing the frustrated politician Dan White who ends up assassinating Milk couldn’t have been pleasant but he actually brings humanity to the guy. We even feel a certain empathy for the man who is struggling to support his family but has all of his thunder stolen by Milk.

Looking back, this review is nothing but positive and Milk is indeed a very good film.

But I hardly gave it a second thought the next day. Recently, some films have been so good that I wanted to see them again and others have left me thinking about them for a long time after. Milk did neither of those things.

Overall, Milk deserves the nominations it has received this year. But it certainly doesn’t deserve to top it’s competition.

Thursday, 22 January 2009

The 81st Academy Awards Ceremony is taking place in exactly a month and therefore tradition states that the nominations are revealed today. These were announced at 1.30pm today and are as follows: Best pictureThe Curious Case of Benjamin Button Frost/NixonMilkThe ReaderSlumdog Millionaire

No surprises there but I had hoped The Dark Knight would have featured.

It has to be Wall-E. Personally, I would have put it in the Best Picture category – the Online Film Critics Society would have agreed with me.As Rolling Stone critic Peter Travers put it: "If there was ever a time where an animated feature deserved to be nominated for Best Picture it's Wall-E."

Wall-E again! Pixar are cropping up all over the place. But Slumdog will be hard to beat.

============================================================

I could go into all of the categories for Special Effects, Costume Design, Make-Up, etc (although I am adamant that Ben Burtt gets recognition for his monumental Sound Editing/ Mixing in Wall-E) but I will wait until the nearer the time when I give my full wish list.

The reality has just dawned however: I have a hell of a lot of films to see in the next four weeks...a

Tuesday, 20 January 2009

It is impossible to talk about The Wrestler without the obvious parallels between the character of Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson and Mickey Rourke’s real-life career. Every review I have read so far has mentioned the inevitable comparison and, to be honest, it is unavoidable.

In short, Mickey Rourke was a popular leading man back in the 80s. He started turning down roles in major movies, then chose to quit acting and return to professional boxing in 1991. Even being offered the role of Butch in Pulp Fiction couldn’t change his mind. At first. But eventually, when boxing didn’t work out, he attempted to break back into Hollywood but by that time Hollywood had shut the door. Rourke was therefore filed under ‘has-been’ and has rarely been seen again.

It’s not quite right to call The Wrestler his comeback (that came courtesy of Robert Rodriguez who cast him in Once Upon A Time in Mexico and gave him the kick-ass role of Marv in Sin City) but it is certainly the first time he has headlined a film in almost twenty years. And judging by this performance, it won’t be the last.

In short, Rourke is epic.

No-one else could play the role of an over-the-hill wrestler this well except an over-the hill ex-boxer/ex-actor like Rourke. He delivers lines like, ‘I’m just an old piece of meat’ with such pathos that you just know he is speaking for himself, as much as the character. And the script allows Rourke to shine. He becomes the character, switching adeptly between the tear-jerking moments (dancing with his estranged daughter), the drama (suffering a heart attack) and a healthy amount of comedy.

The comedy is another reason I like this film. It really shows that not all award-winning performances require woeful, understated deliverance like Kate Winslet in The Reader. This role proves that an actor can have fun with a role and win a Golden Globe – hopefully soon to be an Oscar. The moments of comedy are wide and frequent: playing NES with a kid who talks about Call of Duty 4, picking out clothes for his daughter (‘I think she is a lesbian, does that affect what I buy her?’) and his initial enthusiasm serving people at the deli counter. All brilliant.

And the physicality of the role requires somebody tough like Rourke. He is looking stacked throughout and he needs to be. Although pro-wrestling is largely fake, Rourke is thrown around the ring in a blur of shakey-cam flips and smackdowns. And everyone leaving this film will remember the insane, Jackass-style bout involving barbed wire, glass, drawing pins and – unforgettably - a staple gun. When the words ‘Fourteen minutes earlier…’ flash up on the screen, you know you are in for a treat.

There are other praises to sing (Marisa Tomei, Rachel Evan Wood, Aronofsky’s hand-held direction) but The Wrestler is Rourke’s showcase through and through. And when the film’s abrupt cut-to-black ending arrives, you will be left hoping that he gets the Oscar next month.

Monday, 19 January 2009

This is quite a boring review to write because I didn’t feel very strongly about this film either way. I’ll therefore make it short.

The primary reason anyone will see this film is because of Kate Winslet’s Golden Globe-winning and Bafta-nominated performance as Hana Schmidt. In fairness, it’s a good performance. But it is ‘subtle-good’, as opposed to ‘Heath Ledger’s immortal, you’ll-never-forget-it Joker’ good. As for the Award-attention, it’s not exactly surprising. Since Titanic, Winslet has always been Academy-friendly and now she is playing a controversial, illiterate, often-nude Nazi. If she doesn’t get an Oscar this year, then she never will.

And that would be the greatest irony of her career, especially after Ricky Gervais made her say in Extras (paraphrased): “Holocaust films guarantee you an Oscar.”

Other than Winslet, you are left with a grim, cathartic film (a standard Stephen Daldry picture then) about a law student who has an affair with a tram conductor one summer, only to find out years later at Law School that she became an SS guard at Auschwitz. In short, there is little to make you smile but lots to make you cry. The harrowing scenes of the young Michael Berg (David Kross, who definitely should have been nominated for the Orange Rising Star Award) visiting the real remains of Auschwitz are particularly disturbing. There are also prison scenes, a suicide and – just to make sure you leave feeling glum – a final scene at a graveyard.

Ultimately, like Che, you have to be in the right state of mind to see this film: curiosity more than a desire to be entertained. This is definitely not Saturday night, popcorn-fodder.

Thursday, 15 January 2009

Before I even begin this review, I am going to have a rant about Orange Wednesdays. Yes, it’s great that people can get cheaper cinema tickets but I hate them. Why? Because Orange Wednesdays drag all of cinema’s greatest offenders out of their homes and into the multiplex. I’m talking about chavs, chavettes, texters, chatterboxes, popcorn-munchers and people who actually laugh at the Orange adverts. It drives me mental.

And I walked into an empty cinema, sat down and the next people through the door – who could have sat anywhere else – sat directly behind me. And then, the next woman through the door sat next to me. She asked me to move my coat and everything. What the hell?!

Films are a form of art. These reprobates don’t go to the museum or art galleries. But I have to suffer them in the cinema. Humph.

Anyway, snobbery over. The Spirit…

===============================================================

I’ll start by getting the inevitable Sin City comparison out of the way. Yes, there are similarities: a black, white & red palette, gravely voiceovers, Frank Miller. But the comparisons end there - The Spirit is an incredibly ridiculous and bizarre film.

Despite looking like Sin City, The Spirit is less of a graphic novel film and more of a comic book film. In fact, it is less of a comic book film and more of a spoof of a comic book film. The passing tongue-in-cheek references to Robin, Superman and even Thor only confirm that. The whole film lacks the punch, thrills and gritty tone of Sin City and you feel that the film is missing one key ingredient: Robert Rodriguez.

The Spirit is certainly memorable for an infinite number of reasons but I can’t quite work out if those reasons are good, bad or just plain weird: we see a bouncing foot with a head, Eva Mendes photocopies her ass, Samuel L Jackson melts a cat. And that isn’t the half of it.

Maybe one of the big problems is that The Spirit is a costumed hero that you just cannot take seriously. I’m not sure if that is Gabriel Macht’s fault or just the way the character was written. Our leading man is obsessed with women, cats and his city – running jokes (hopefully intentional) that just get silly. One minute he is hamming up the gravitas, the next minute he is dangling from a building with his pants around his ankles. He is ridiculous. It is hard to feel for such a dumb character, even when he is in mortal danger, because he just keeps spurting out baffling quips. At one moment he even breaks the fourth wall to chat to the audience reminding me of Zach in Saved by the Bell.

If there is anything good about this film, apart from the sexy ladies (simultaneously wearing wetsuits, nurse outfits and there is even a belly dancer) and the style of the film (why don’t more films look like this?), then it would have to be our villains.

The best scenes by far feature Samuel L Jackson and Scarlett Johansson, as The Octopus and Silken Floss respectively, both clearly loving the free rein to chew the scenery. They both play over-the-top, cardboard cut-out villains, with more wardrobe changes than an Oscar host. We see Jackson dressed as a samurai, scientist, fur-lined gangster and, if you thought Tom Cruise’s turn in Valkyrie was the surprise Nazi of the year, wait until you see Jackson suited-and-booted in his finest SS gear.

Both villains get the clunkiest of the lines. Johansson snapping insult like ‘Fart’ and ‘Toe-cheese’ at her henchmen (these guys are irritating enough, even without a lisp) whilst Jackson gets to shout the following:

“I’ve got eight of everything!” “Toilets are always funny!” “Immortality: all five big syllables of it!” “No egg on my face. Not one glob!” “Mutha-fu…!” Final words. Classic Jackon.

As you can see, the dialogue is bonkers and certainly not what you would expect from king of the graphic novel, Frank Miller. The whole film sounds like somebody imitating Miller. And when the dialogue isn’t being ridiculous, then it is actually quite tiresome. And one point, The Spirit says: “I’m growing old just listening to you,” and we as the audience are inclined to agree.

Overall, I left the cinema feeling a bit baffled.

The Spirit is kind of cool in a silly, sexy way - but ‘Snakes on a Plane’ cool, as opposed to ‘Sin City’ cool.

Tuesday, 13 January 2009

All of these words were flying through my mind during Danny Boyle’s latest film and I left the cinema with a feel-good spring in my step. The sort of my spring you only get after watching a really good film. Yes, I can confirm, that Slumdog Millionaire is every bit as good as the five-star reviews led me to believe.

I now consider myself a big campaigner for this film and could not be happier with its plethora of Golden Globes from Sunday’s ceremony: Best Director, Best Film, Best Screenplay and Best Score. All four are well-deserved. And let’s hope the Oscars get it right this year.

So why does it work so well? A poor kid winning money on the Indian equivalent to Who Want’s To Be A Millionaire? Sounds pretty formulaic right? And it certainly could have been. But when did Danny Boyle ever pick a bad book to adapt? Joining both Trainspotting and The Beach before it, Vikas Swarup’s novel Q and A has now been given the Boyle-treatment and it shines.

The trailers could be deemed misleading, as it comes across as a fluffy rags-to-riches story via everyone’s favourite quiz show. But the quiz show is simply a narrative structure that allows our hero Jamal (Dev Patel, recommended by Boyle’s daughter after watching Skins) to tell his life story to his interrogators while being accused of cheating. And it works really well.

And what a life story! Jamal has seen it all: his mother murdered by extremist Hindus, orphans having their eyes burned out, his brother Salim commit murder, repeatedly losing the love of his life (Frieda Pinto). He even swims through shit! Therefore, don’t expect a family-friendly comedy.

Nevertheless, it is deservedly labelled the feel-good film of the year. For all of the grittiness of life in Mumbai, you get moments of hope and a lot of humour. The aforementioned swimming-through-shit moment is hilarious, disgusting and makes you feel like cheering all at once. Boyle might have even topped his Ewan McGregor shit-swimming in Trainspotting.

And I agree with Empire: it certainly is his best film since Trainspotting. Boyle is leading the Brits towards the Oscars with Kate Winslet at his side and after the Globes, things are looking good. His direction is superb. Mumbai is a colourful mix of half-built slums, gorgeous sunsets & eclectic skylines and Boyle’s lens captures it all.

He is also making movie stars of more-unknowns – he has such a good eye for talent and introduced us to Ewan McGregor, Cillian Murphy and now Dev Patel. Patel’s performance is moving, heartfelt, charming and many other things. It is incredible to think that he only get into acting because his Mum made him attend the open auditions for Skins. Frieda Pinto, a professional model, is gorgeous as the love-interest Latika and the five-year old versions of the two brothers are so good! They carry the first third of the movie and you end up being a little bit disappointed when they grow up into different actors.

Also, Boyle’s other great talent: Master of the Movie Soundtrack. Who can forget Underworld’s ‘Born Slippy’ (Trainspotting) and Moby’s ‘Porcelain’ (The Beach)? It looks like ‘Paper Planes’ by M.I.A will be joining them. And for that matter, everything in A.R. Rahman’s score.

My final answer: this film works. Historically, the Golden Globes are usually more on-the-ball than the Oscars. But hopefully this will be a year when British talent and unconventional stories grab the Academy’s attention. And even if Slumdog does not win anything further, it will outlast any Oscar-baiting films for many years to come.

Phone a friend and go see this film. It has set the standard for 2009.

Monday, 12 January 2009

Steven Soderbergh’s Che Guevara epic consists of two parts: the first, The Argentine, to be released in January and the second, The Guerrilla, to be released in February. It is therefore something of an ‘event’ movie and among other things (it was applauded at Cannes) I went out of my way to check it out.

Part One was everything I expected from Soderbergh and I was met with a gritty, artistic and understated film. Soderbergh is a director who will inter-cut scenes at random, use close-up shots unnecessarily and show scene-after-scene of mumbling subtle performances. That doesn’t mean it is a bad film but beware that he has purposely gone for an ‘arty’ look. Then again, perhaps that is fitting for the Trotsky icon that is Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara.

Regardless of its style, it is a captivating film. I knew very little about Guevara before this film and I still know very little about him now. But Soderbergh does give you a feel for the man behind the Alberto Korda silhouette. For instance, did you know that Guevara suffered from severe asthma? Thought not.

Obviously, if you want a strict character insight into Guevara then other films can help you out (The Motorcycle Diaries) however this is a selective biography. Similar to how Michael Mann’s Ali chose a significant period of just ten years of Ali’s life, these two films focus on Guevara’s rise in Part One (liberating Cuba) and Guevara’s demise in Part Two (failing to liberate Bolivia). The film therefore depicts the journey of Castro’s guerrillas, led by Guevara, marching across Cuba fighting Batista’s armies in an attempt to overthrow the dictator. This is less a standard biopic then and more a revolutionary’s answer to Saving Private Ryan…

…although much less exciting. There are a few skirmishes and the final Battle for Santa Clara is worth the wait - especially when they have to sledgehammer through five houses in order to reclaim a Church from snipers - but this is a deliberately-slow, thoughtful film. The memorable moments are underplayed and therefore this is not the exciting war film some people might expect. In fact, it’s not particularly comfortable viewing: it is overlong, subtitled and it sporadically cuts away to black-and-white footage at the United Nations. These do not compliment the story but rather feel like being dragged away from the playground to the classroom in the midst of a good game.

In short, you need to be in the right frame of mind to watch this film.

Nevertheless, the cast are brilliant (you can’t imagine anyone but Del Toro playing Guevara and he won Best Actor at Cannes) and if you are in the mood for something different then it is worth checking out. And remember, the two parts of Che were originally envisaged as one five-hour film, so if you consider that this is the first half of a movie then Soderbergh has just been warming the audience up for its thrilling second half. This is certainly very promising and means that the tragic fall of Guevara this February could be a very kinetic cinema ride indeed.

====================================================

And in other news: when I bought my ticket, the dude behind the counter said: “Are you aware that this film is subtitled?” And I was like: “I should hope so, my Spanish is a little rusty.” Since when did it become necessary to warn people that they might have to do some reading? Are people actually walking out of films because they have to read subtitles? Mental!

Thursday, 8 January 2009

This was the first step of my 2009 Oscar campaign, whereby I am attempting to see every Oscar-nominated film solely so I can legitimately slag off the Oscars when my favourites don't win. Obviously, the nominations aren't published until January 22nd but there's no way a Clint Eastwood-directed film won't make it through the nominations.

Anyway, The Changeling was praised by every film critic I could find with five stars all-round. However, I was initially cynical of this movie, as it has all the typical signs of Oscar-baiting: true story, depressing, classically-shot, Hollywood A-lister in the starring role, Clint Eastwood.

Nevertheless, it was pretty incredible. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because I usually avoid the 'serious drama' genre. But it has a good story to tell and I didn't get bored at any point.

I expected a standard story of a mother's quest for justice but the film is actually more of a bitter commentary on the corruption of the LAPD in 1920s America and the horrendous treatment of mental health patients. You will find more than a few scenes reminiscent of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and it is very well done.

And on top of that, you get a whole second narrative strand about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders which tells the story of the psychopathic Gordon Northcott who kidnapped, tortured and murdered several children, possibly including the missing son of Angelina Jolie's character.

Aside from Jolie and Malkovich's cop-hating Priest (both awesome), the cast is relatively unknown which certainly helps the true-story feel of the movie. Everybody is great in their roles and Jason Butler Harner is unnervingly watchable as Hutchins every step of the way. The film is also not as depressing as I first suspected with the bad guys getting their comeuppance and the final note of the film is one of hope.

Fact: interestingly, screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski claims that 95% of the film's dialogue came directly from articles, testimony, transcripts and correspondence from the period.

Obviously, the Academy's attention will be on Angelina as Best Actress and Eastwood as Best Director (I wouldn't bet against Best Film either). But personally, I'd like to see some Best Supporting Actor recognition for Malkovich and Harner.

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

I have scrapped the whole 'Re-Connecting with Old Friends' thing, as it's hard to measure and something that I do without trying anyway. I considered putting down 'Travel' but that would be cheating, as I have already booked holidays to Greece and Japan. 'Save Money' very nearly made it to the list but I have been doing that for the past few months anyway and doing more of that isn't too much of a stretch.

a

So... here is what I came up with:

a

1. Write - like all English Literature graduates, I want to be a writer. So this year I am going to start writing stuff and if it's shit then I can abandon this pipe-dream nice and early.

a

2. Read - all good writers are good readers. I am therefore going to attempt to read one book every week. Ambitious.

a

3. Cook - I love watching cookery programmes but I do very little of it, so this year it's time to get the wok out.

a

4. Watch More Films (see right) - film is kinda my thing so this is being carried forward from last year. I shall measure this by going to the cinema at least once a week and watching other new films where possible.

a

5. Get Buff - this is also being carried forward from last year. I shall measure it by going to the gym at least three times a week. Very ambitious.

No doubt due to my year as a student politican, I take New Year's Resolutions quite seriously. They are essentially a personal manifesto. Admittedly, unlike a political manifesto, nobody is holding me to account accept myself (and maybe this blog) so I think it is important to look back and see how I fared.

Okay, so, my NYR for 2008 were:

1. Drive - I passed my test in June and bought a car in August. Done.

a

2. More Smoothies, Less Beer - done. I even joined the Innocent Smoothie mailing list (see right).

3. Get Buff - my gym attendance has been sporadic but I did run two half-marathons and a 5km charity run.

4. Films: Watch More, Make More - I have watched more (especially Eastern cinema) but this is hard to measure. Unfortunately, I have made no films whatsoever.

5. Re-connect With Old Friends - done. Again, hard to measure but I rarely turn down a reunion opportunity and moving home has made it even easier to hang out with my old school friends.

Considering most people only have one Resolution per year, I could have done much worse. But, excuses, excuses, I shall be more hardcore with my 2009 NYR (see above)!

Monday, 5 January 2009

This is my first day back at work since the festive season and it has been a quality two weeks.

As always, my blog-rate drops heavily during the holidays so here is a quick catch-up delivered through the helpful medium of bulletpoints:

I won a competition hosted by our Volunteering department to design a Christmas tree decoration, judged by none other than the SU President himself!

I got incredibly drunk at the Notts SU Christmas staff party.

I spent a few days in Devon with my girlfriend's family and met her Austrailian relatives.

Alexandra Burke was the Christmas No.1 with her version of Hallelujah but the Jeff Buckley Facebook campaign nevertheless achieved a No.2 victory. This is incredible when you consider that it was solely achieved through downloads.

I had the usual Christmas Day of food, board games and television. Not to mention the latest Wallace & Gromit.

we had an epic night out for my mate's birthday on the 27th in Rescue Rooms.

we had another epic night out in Swanage for NYE, where we stayed at Little Kate's B&B and kitted ourselves out in our finest fancy dress (see right).

myself and Kerrie got disasterously lost on the way home from Swanage and Kerrie came this close to puking in my car.